The first three pages of the newspaper are now accounted for for the next week.
The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the federal ban on partial birth abortion/late term abortion/a-certain-type-of-abortion-procedure/insert your preferred euphemism here.
And Imus Rejoiced
Comments to "And Imus Rejoiced":
smartass sob | April 18, 2007, 10:54am | #
Must be ratings sweep week for H&R and other blogs.VM | April 18, 2007, 10:56am | #
It all makes sense now:waited too long? Can't abort? Send 'em to Va Tech! Get a "ChoSeungHui-ortion"
Lost_In_Translation | April 18, 2007, 10:57am | #
The law bans a method of ending a pregnancy, rather than limiting when an abortion can be performed.a certain method? what, hitting a women in the stomach with a bat?
I wouldn't worry though. When Obama/Guliani becomes president, abortions for everybody.
But... but... but.... L_I_T - what about miniature American Flags?
Just out of curiosity, where did the court find the constitutional authority for this? Or don't they even bother looking anymore?
Self-Righteous Humor Police | April 18, 2007, 11:22am | #
waited too long? Can't abort? Send 'em to Va Tech! Get a "ChoSeungHui-ortion"Too soon! Too soon!
Nobody argued the Commerce Clause issue to the Court, Warren. You would hope the Supremes would bring it up "sua sponte", but (except for Clarence Thomas) nobody mentioned it.
Cab | April 18, 2007, 11:23am | #
where did the court find the constitutional authority for this?I suppose the same place they found a woman's constitutional right to an abortion in the first place.
Lamar | April 18, 2007, 11:25am | #
Cab:That's a zinger. Personally, I don't mind when the court expands freedom as much as when the court takes away freedoms. That's just me though.
Zoomie Junior | April 18, 2007, 11:31am | #
I prefer "larval parasite removal", kill it before it reaches the pupal stage and well before it can become a mature parasite capable of producing more.*This tag is for the sarcastically impaired... excuse me.. 'persons without sarcasm'*
SugarFree | April 18, 2007, 11:43am | #
Fine by me, Lamar. My work wife is a hormonal horrorshow. (Home wife, not so much.)jesusfreak | April 18, 2007, 11:46am | #
"Just out of curiosity, where did the court find the constitutional authority for this? Or don't they even bother looking anymore?"Fuck the rules
WE WIN!!!
troll | April 18, 2007, 11:48am | #
"insert your preferred euphemism here. "uhhhhh.....killing babies?
Will Allen | April 18, 2007, 11:50am | #
Instapundit notes that Thomas' opinion explicitly states that this law may not pass muster on Commerce Clause grounds, but that the litigants didn't raise the issue, so the Court didn't address it. I'd love to read Scalia's rationalization of why the procedure in question comes under the heading of interstate commerce. Maybe he would just call fetuses human beings and say they cannot be deprived of life without due process.Lamar, my comment was less about abortion than it was the Supreme Court's ability to find whatever they want to find, when they want to find it. I agree with you about erring on the side of expanding freedom.
de stijl | April 18, 2007, 11:57am | #
insert your preferred euphemism hereBecause using actual medically descriptive terminology like Intact Dilation and Extraction is so fucking hard.
The True Libertarian | April 18, 2007, 12:02pm | #
My oh my . . . Warren, don't you get it? The Constitution declares that ALL people are entitled to a defense against undue deprivation AND that all are entitled to life and liberty. If ANY of you are so ignorant, in this wonderful age of scientific knowledge, as to deny that a fetus is ,at a very early stage ,a sentient and living creature worthy of the protections which you enjoy and fight to preserve, then God/Allah/Buddha/Hindu floaty thing help you! I am tired of so-called libertarians , whose liberty-loving inclinations generally incline them to reason and science, denying the naked truth of life in the womb. How can you love liberty and yet advocate the death of innocents? Is it not our duty as libertarians to uphold the creed of non-aggression? Get with it . . .TrueLib: get back to me when these creatures can live on their own. Otherwise, I'll have to view them for what they are. Amoebas' first cousin.
jw | April 18, 2007, 12:13pm | #
"If ANY of you are so ignorant, in this wonderful age of scientific knowledge, as to deny that a fetus is ,at a very early stage ,a sentient and living creature worthy of the protections which you enjoy and fight to preserve,..."The usual question, at least in libertarian circles, is not whether a fetus is human life or at which point it becomes such, but whether it is a human BEING and at which point of development it becomes such.
The True Libertarian | April 18, 2007, 12:22pm | #
Lamar . . . your idiocy is stunning. If "live on their own" was the qualification for what we value as being truly worthy of protection, then you would obviously have no problem lining up every child under the age of five against a wall and killing them, considering the fact that they are incapable of living " on their own ". Or what about the elderly and infirm for that matter? Do they not breathe and live? Medical science has demonstrated emotion, pain, pleasure, and the viability of fetal life OUTSIDE of the womb as early as 16 weeks. Your statement is vaporous and indicative of a true attachment to blood-lust. Go join your Stalinist brethren in Europe . . . you certainly have more in common with them than with anyone that truly believes in liberty.Dr. K | April 18, 2007, 12:22pm | #
If ANY of you are so ignorant, in this wonderful age of scientific knowledge, as to deny that a fetus is ,at a very early stage ,a sentient and living creature...Living, we agree on. Sentient, not so much.
de stijl | April 18, 2007, 12:24pm | #
The True Libertarian,You may not want to hang your hat on a fetus' sentience for your arguement. Unless you're okay with second and third trimester abortions, but my guess is that you're not.
The True Libertarian | April 18, 2007, 12:31pm | #
De Stijl . . . good point. So, not sentience . . . but brainwaves and heartbeats?? Is not the absence thereof the definition of the absence of life? Ergo, the existence of these is the definition of life, with it's already self-perpetuating and kinetic element of movement and action? Any attempt to parse FACTS is an attempt to deny the centrality of a given truth. Best to face truth with reason and move on . . .otherwise, we are no better than the Big Machine operators who view all of us as mere cogs in the order of things. That is what we are supposed to be against . . . anyways, de stijl, I like the name . . . the art movement and the W.S. album.Lamar | April 18, 2007, 12:39pm | #
Folks, I wasn't talking about the "ability to function within society" or "ability to perform certain activities." I was merely talking about the scientific fact that a fetus removed from the womb in the first three months of pregnancy will die (i.e., lose that heartbeat/brainwaves) without a miraculous intervention. So comparing a fetus to a 5 year old misses the mark. And if the elderly or infirm choose to end their life, then let 'er rip. Terry Schiavo is vegetative? Then the next of kin speaks for her. Falsely convicted of murder in Texas, then the state will kill you.TrueLib: your desire to be in everybody else's business highlights the absurdity of your handle. Abortion laws in this country already restrict abortions after 16 weeks, so that argument you made is a throwaway. Your problem is that you see this in terms of irresponsible sluts using late-term abortions as birth control. You really have no idea of the practical implications of your position. This is serious medicine, not a condom-break insurance policy.
Dr. K | April 18, 2007, 12:40pm | #
...but brainwaves and heartbeats?? Is not the absence thereof the definition of the absence of life? Ergo, the existence of these is the definition of life...Error: Does not compute.
SugarFree | April 18, 2007, 12:47pm | #
ABORTION FLAME WAR! WOO!The same people making the same arguments they always make! Woooo!
Let me run home and my camera.
Abortion threads should be the next Godwin's Law.
joe | April 18, 2007, 12:48pm | #
Fetuses are not "self-perpetuating." Before a certain point, they couldn't perpetuate themselves if they tried.And no, I'm not talking about securing resources in the cold, cruel world. I'm talking about carrying out respiration, digestion, excretion, and the other processes of life.
Lamar | April 18, 2007, 12:53pm | #
"Let me run home and my camera."Is there an error in this sentence? I think you meant to say "chimera."
SugarFree | April 18, 2007, 12:55pm | #
Lamar...And get my camera.
It's hard to type when you are endlessly amused by your own snark. It's all I have left, really...
smartass sob | April 18, 2007, 1:06pm | #
"It's all I have left, really..."And that's sure not much. (sigh)
I have an idea. To spice this up, let's start spelling it "foetus" and calling each other "confounded old chum."
Fisherman Rolf | April 18, 2007, 1:15pm | #
Fetus = bait for Northern PikeStevo Darkly | April 18, 2007, 1:17pm | #
I have an idea. To spice this up, let's start spelling it "foetus" and calling each other "confounded old chum."I actually like that a lot.
I mean: Capital idea, old chum! Capital!
SugarFree | April 18, 2007, 1:20pm | #
Lamar and smartass,Wow, did we just find a formula for killing abortion flame wars? Of course, the churchies and the godless heathens might just be having lunch.
smartass sob | April 18, 2007, 1:36pm | #
"Of course, the churchies and the godless heathens might just be having lunch."They're probably off somewhere making new foetuses.
D.A. Ridgely | April 18, 2007, 1:57pm | #
I mean: Capital idea, old chum! Capital!"I say, Jeeves, what an astonishing afternoon! I just popped into the Drones for a quick G & Tonic when Bingo Little let the cat out that Tuppy Glossip, of all unlikely chaps, has gotten Madeline Bassett in a family way, if you know what I mean, Jeeves."
"How very distressing, Sir."
"Indeed so, Jeeves. One shutters at the thought. I mean really, Madeline Bassett? I wouldn't have believed old Tuppy had it in him. Not, I dare say, the act of the prix chevalier."
"Decidedly not, Sir."
"And now this telegram from Aunt Dahlia insisting that I -- I, of all people! -- motor down at once to East Bumbley to arrange with that pustulent boil of a blight on the English fundiment, Sir Roderick Glossop to have the little nipper nipped out, if that's the phrase I seek here, Jeeves."
"It conveys the point quite adequately, sir."
"Well, there's just nothing to be done about it, I suppose. What's that wiz of yours Jeeves about 'twere done 'twere done at once?"
"Not mine, I'm afraid, sir, but Mr. William Shakespeare from his play Macbeth. 'If it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well it were done quickly.'"
"Exactly so, Jeeves. Better pack the two-seater."
"Very good, sir."
The Third Moose | April 18, 2007, 2:25pm | #
DAR - Orson Wells does another good rendition hierlunchstealer | April 18, 2007, 2:39pm | #
So what would happen to the spacetime continuum if Bertie Wooster were to ask Dr. House to perform said nipper-nipping?lunchstealer | April 18, 2007, 2:43pm | #
God I hate to intrude on the peace of a flame war ended, but damn if I can resist posting something here.The Constitution declares that ALL people are entitled to a defense against undue deprivation AND that all are entitled to life and liberty. If ANY of you are so ignorant, in this wonderful age of scientific knowledge, as to deny that a fetus is ,at a very early stage ,a sentient and living creature worthy of the protections which you enjoy and fight to preserve
The problem here, for thoughtful libertarians, is how to apply this. We accept numerous age-based limitations of various rights. The constitution's last age-based restriction of rights expires at age 35. Even libertarians grant parental exceptions to individual liberty for children. While abortion can be interpreted as a violation of libertarian principles, so is parental authority. But libertarianism doesn't advocate preventing parents from exercising authority over children.
So clearly libertarianism isn't quite about absolute freedom from all coercion. There are exceptions based on age, species (libertarianism doesn't apply the non-agression principle to pets, livestock, or game animals, either - much to the chagrin of whatever weird mutant LP/PETA members are out there) or at least sentience of species, and possibly some other criteria that escape my mind. My point is that we have, on occasion, a need to draw some arbitrary lines.
What libertarianism DOES hold as a central tenet is that government, where possible, should make as few restrictions on freedom as possible. This sets up a natural logical conflict between the parent's rights and the foetus's rights. It's a no-win for libertarian principles. But there's one clear distinction - parents are living, breathing people. Foetuses might be living, and might be people, but they're certainly not 'living, breathing people'. It's a distinction that most libertarians recognize as giving us some guidance on the issue. Most libertarians decide to award rights to mothers because in their minds there's no controversy over whether they're people. A few award rights to fetuses because in their minds there's no controversy over whether or not there's life.
Neither are absolutely right, and in a case where government can't see an absolute right, libertarian principle suggests that each individual must make up their own mind as to what is the moral way to procede. We do not coerce people to have abortions, nor to give abortions. We simply allow individuals to make that choice.
To fail to even acknowledge that there is a dilemma for libertarianism at all is pretty questionable. To proclaim a libertarian to be an idiot for failing to fall on your side of this debate on absolutist terms is especially odious.
smartass sob | April 18, 2007, 2:58pm | #
"God I hate to intrude on the peace of a flame war ended, but damn if I can resist posting something here."Didn't get laid at lunch, didja Lunchstealer? ;-)
SugarFree | April 18, 2007, 3:00pm | #
lunchstealer,It's two tar babies having a fight; just sit back and try not to get any on you.
Reason and argument will never settle any argument that basically stems from emotional opinion. This what I've been trying to get the notion of "Abortion threads are the new Godwin's Law" across. Godwin's Law, as I understand it, is a hyperbole speed limit. Comment thread cops try to slow hyperbolic ad hominem attacks down by employing it as a shortcut refutation of technique. Abortion threads should be avoided for the same reason. They always devolve into "Murderer!" and "Christard!" eventually. They turn everyone involved into trolls. And, really, don't we have enough of them already?
Anyway, please don't take offense at any of this, you seem to be trying to have a reasonable debate about a subject 99% of people refuse to be reasonable about. I applaud that, I really do.
What??? What is this country coming too when it no longer permits a clump of cells to be destroyed mid-birth??? What's next?? The crimialization of lynchings???
SugarFree | April 18, 2007, 3:11pm | #
lunchstealer,Exhibit fucking A.
Even if he's just being funny, what has Bill added to the debate? (Sorry, Bill, I'm not trying to be mean...)
Kwix | April 18, 2007, 3:13pm | #
Jebus Lunchstealer,Way to try and interject reason and thought into what is clearly an emotions only argument. You, pack up your toys and go home!
lunchstealer | April 18, 2007, 3:19pm | #
SF - I know, I know. Pissin' into the wind.But if I can't light a candle, then I'd like to at least occasionally curse the darkness*.
*Not that "Givin' Up" isn't my favorite heroin-related song ever, but y'know...
SugarFree | April 18, 2007, 3:24pm | #
Kwix,You're not working are you? That always screws with my timing.
I'm editing photographs today, so I can always bounce back to the boards while they are churning away. That and Ms. Bosslady is out of town. (It's odd to have a female boss named Bosslady, but I'm lucky like that.)
Of course I'm working! Why else would I be spending time here instead of out and about?
SugarFree | April 18, 2007, 3:34pm | #
ToucheChrisO | April 18, 2007, 3:44pm | #
Nobody argued the Commerce Clause issue to the Court, Warren. You would hope the Supremes would bring it up "sua sponte", but (except for Clarence Thomas) nobody mentioned it.Not surprising. Whatever bad one might want to say about Thomas, he *does* have a good appreciation of the Commerce Clause. Regulation of medical procedures is such a traditional function of the states that I'm surprised the Commerce Clause wasn't argued at some point. That's my position on Roe v. Wade (and I'm pro-choice)--the U.S. Constitution is silent on the issue of abortion regulation by the states but does not contain any provision allowing the feds to get involved.
Media Marvin | April 18, 2007, 4:16pm | #
"Exhibit fucking A.Even if he's just being funny, what has Bill added to the debate? (Sorry, Bill, I'm not trying to be mean...)"
Perhaps Bill was pointing out the slow positive evolution of society vis-a-vis the barbarity of both PBA and lynching.
SugarFree | April 18, 2007, 4:24pm | #
Exhibit BMedia Marvin | April 18, 2007, 4:47pm | #
Exhibit CThe True Libertarian | April 18, 2007, 5:19pm | #
The point: libertarians should not be wishy-washy. Odious or not, if you are not going to accept Facts, your never going to be taken seriously. Which is why Libs lose time and again, and why we will never be able to muster more than .05% of the vote . . . we come across as passionately devoted to ... nothing. Other than live and let live, which is great in the fantasy-land of your head, but in the real world, the closest we will ever get to that is to start by acknowledging simple truths, fighting for them with aplomb, and joining ourselves to the fight for maximum liberty for ALL. Otherwise, many potential allies/converts will brush us off as hippie-wannabe wishy-washy scam artists.lunchstealer | April 18, 2007, 6:10pm | #
The point: libertarians should not be wishy-washy.So you agree with me that no person should ever be prevented from making their own medical decisions? Excellent.
Lamar | April 18, 2007, 6:36pm | #
"Otherwise, many potential allies/converts will brush us off as hippie-wannabe wishy-washy scam artists."Or make us one of the most highly courted demographics in many election cycles. Besides, which part of "your medical treatment is none of my business" is wishy-washy?
SugarFree | April 18, 2007, 6:50pm | #
SugarFree | April 18, 2007, 4:24pm | #Exhibit B
Media Marvin | April 18, 2007, 4:47pm | #
Exhibit C
Way to both miss the point and prove it. [golf clap]
The True Libertarian | April 18, 2007, 7:42pm | #
Lamar . . . you and every other relativist Mengele that purports to believe in liberty AND state-sanctioned murder can only be described as a hopelessly lost and disturbed soul . . . and yes, I am a libertarian that stands for something other than my right not to stand for anything at all. If you cannot understand the importance of acknowledging what "life" is, then how can you, or anyone for that matter, understand and advance any notion related to the protection and promotion of "life, liberty, and property"? Are we to revise that famous libertarian proviso to include your terribly confused and ultimately perilous view of a logically impossible opinion of what life is? No . . . we may as well say life begins at eighteen, or fifty, or any time we so choose: we are freedom-loving relativists who can change the laws of science and call it an informed opinion! Yippee! Right? How sad . . . how terribly sad.crimethink | April 18, 2007, 7:54pm | #
Just out of curiosity, where did the court find the constitutional authority for this? Or don't they even bother looking anymore?While I like the outcome, I agree that this isn't the best way to bring it about. However, the SCOTUS has in previous cases struck down every state partial birth abortion ban at the state level that came before them; I'm interested in how this ban is different from those (or whether it's just a matter of O'Connor's "swing vote" now being held by Alito).
crimethink | April 18, 2007, 8:00pm | #
Abortion laws in this country already restrict abortions after 16 weeks, so that argument you made is a throwaway.As I noted in a thread the other day, that is a fantasy. There have been no successful prosecutions for third-trimester abortions in the US since 1973, whatever laws are technically on the books.
RvW requires that any restriction on late-term abortions include exceptions for cases where the health of the mother is at risk. This sounds reasonable until you realize that they define "health" as including her mental, emotional, economic, and familial well-being. Any such exception would be broad enough to apply to anyone who wants to get an abortion, so in practice there could be no restriction on abortion at any time during pregnancy (until today).
D.A. Ridgely | April 18, 2007, 8:16pm | #
Just out of curiosity, where did the court find the constitutional authority for this? Or don't they even bother looking anymore?Nothing has changed except that as membership on the high court shifts over time there are new
Dave2 | April 19, 2007, 5:23am | #
The True Libertarian writes: you and every other relativist Mengele that purports to believe in liberty AND state-sanctioned murder can only be described as a hopelessly lost and disturbed soulRelativist? Fuck you. Just because I don't go around ascribing deep moral standing to every two-bit clump of cells with forty-six chromosomes doesn't make me a relativist.
What, are you a fucking Jain? Do you take care not to step on a pillbug? Or do you think that just because normal adult humans have rights, therefore it magically follows that a Homo sapiens zygote is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment? I mean, if you think unimplanted human blastocysts have more moral worth than an adult gorilla, then you're a dumb piece of shit, and I suspect you aren't raising hell about gorilla rights.
Get your head out of your ass.
TrueLib: are you addressing my arguments or just repeating your refuted diatribe? As the famous saying goes, sticks and stones may break my bones, but unless I start playing NCAA basketball, names will never hurt me.
Robert | April 19, 2007, 2:05pm | #
Nobody argued the Commerce Clause issue to the Court, Warren. You would hope the Supremes would bring it up "sua sponte", but (except for Clarence Thomas) nobody mentioned it.That's because the statute itself applies only to persons "in or affecting interstate commerce" (just like the ban on organ sales). It doesn't purport to apply to persons generally. Therefore it's a question for the trial court (a jury in a jury trial) in any given case, based on the facts, whether the doctor being prosecuted was in, or affecting, interstate commerce.
So the only way for the law to be struck down on that basis would be to find that any conceivable person performing partial birth abortions could not possibly be in, or affect, interstate commerce. And that'd be awfully difficult to find!
It's pretty clear that a doctor who crossed state lines to perform such a procedure would be in interstate commerce. It would be very interesting to see what facts get argued in trial court regarding whether an abortionist affected interstate commerce.